Define competitive, BM was more than glad capable every season of BFA. It was really just MM that was terrible, as it has been mechanically for a while.
Didnāt realize how difficult it would be to properly explain what makes survival the worst melee dps spec and overall tied for last. To begin with the talent choicesā¦you donāt really have a talent choice. Your best ST and AOE choices are the same and you generally run the same setup for Mythic+ and raids. The majority of talents are in such a state that each could be made baseline and you wouldnāt see a damage increase from the hunter in a noticeable way. A couple of them would result in a damage loss if you decided to try and use the talent instead of just your standard rotation.
Your main defensive CD Aspect of the Turtle is a 3 minute self CC on the hunter which prevents attacks while Turtle is active. Iād rather this go away entirely and have something that allows the hunter to continue attacking (Iāve used tenacity pets instead for better self CDs for certain content)
On the subject of utility the hunter has Misdirect, a de-enrage, slows, stun, interrupt and a hunter pet which can also bring things like Healing Debuffs, Blood Lust, etc. The pet utility in particular looks good but neither of the two specs who have access to all this wonderful utility are in any demand whatsoever. Survival and BM are both bottom of the barrel. Which can only lead to the conclusion that utility is overrated specifically hunter utility.
Lone Wolf for survival would have my vote, Iād exchange all this hunter pet AI and itās utility for raw damage in a heartbeat.
1 Like
If you take away the pet, how much of the core base class is left? SV would haveā¦ traps? I think lone wolf cannot be an option. If lonewolf were to be added and become the go to for SV, I think SV as a whole would be a better fit in an entirely different class at that point.
We shouldnāt make hunter something it isnāt, which is one of the reasons why current SV already has so much controversy beyond its performance (it definitely needs help though).
2 Likes
I know an iteration of SV that had Lone Wolf 
7 Likes
Basically it needs to do as much single target damage as marks and more AoE damage to make up for the fact itās not ranged
Survival is in a unique enough position where it doesnāt have an identity yet, what is a hunter?
Beast Mastery is known for itās exotic animal taming and āmasteryā if you will of this relationship between hunter and companion.
Marksmanship is the Marksmen or the āSniperā spec which also has no reliance on pets or companions. It trades the pet management off for just a higher base number.
Survivalās mastery is a bond between hunter and pet as a damage increase on focus spending abilities (which fits more into BM) and higher hp regen. But what is itās identity? Using the iconic Spear, assorted traps, and apparently explosives. SV is all over the place, Spearās and Traps are primitive hunter gathererās bread and butter crude but time tested and effective.
So to answer the question Survivalās identity (with or without the pet) could be self-sufficiency and a rewarding play-style for preparation. Leading your quarry into your traps or using terrain for an advantage. I like to imagine survival as being similar to the hunters in monster hunter world and like Geralt from the Witcher series.
But yeah, maybe they can start with fixing these horrible talents for SV most are just trash. Higher numbers would be great too.
Also they should make pets give you focus when they hit stuff effected by SS or something to smooth out focus generation
Lol. Well, you already know my thoughts concerning what happened with old SV and what should be done going forward there.
I just think, if the current iteration is going to stay it needs to at least try to appeal to hunter players. To do that, we should look at the core components of the class. Iād argue the three single most important facets of the class are ranged, pet, and traps.
I absolutely agree that SV needs a talent revamp (so does BM too, quite frankly). But if you remove the pet, then it barely resembles a hunter at all. It wouldnāt be ranged, it wouldnāt have pets, and it would only have traps which have become less of a focus on the spec.
Since you posted while I was still writing, the above covers the core components to the class. I think at most you can only lose one of those components and still keep it close enough to fit the class. Currently, the only spec that really has retained all 3 base components since at least Legion is BM (since MM usually uses lonewolf).
I agree, it is all over the place. I believe they should look inward more towards the core of the class, not outwards by moving even further away from the base.
Thematically, SV is the wild man that fights up close and personal, working as a team with their pet to tear foe apart through whatever means necessary. Removing the pet goes against the class and I donāt think it makes much sense. There isnāt enough left at that point that really distinguishes itself as a hunter at that point.
Unfortunately, Iām completely against the idea. It just doesnāt make a whole lot of sense to me and doesnāt fit the class. I donāt think the base class should be ignored or so minimalized to differentiate any one spec. Itās already wildly unique to the point that itās caused a lot of controversy. I donāt think moving further away from the class will help, itāll do the opposite and hurt it more in the long run.
2 Likes
SV is not Barbarian (Thatās the concept I get from the term āwild manā). SV is the recon ranger. Heās the deep tracking wilderness expert who uses a plethora of gadgets and tools to take down his prey and survive the many dangers of the wilderness. All of the cool parts of current SV besides the aesthetic of the huge frigginā spear do not have much to do with being āup close and personalā. Even people who like MSV are divided on Mongoose Bite, which is the most melee part of MSV. Thatās part of the reason I agree with Adreaver that you can fit both M and R into SV. That MSV doesnāt need to be and would not benefit from being a 4th spec.
My opinion here is mostly in regards to the āRā, tied to SV.
But I would argue that, if the goal is to actually achieve not only some pure basic mechanical interactions but also a certain thematic focus and a distinct fantasy, then what Adreaver has suggested would not by any means allow us to get RSV back.
Latest suggestions Iāve seen from Adreaver on the subject:
#Why survival rdps is a bad idea - #228 by Adreaver-undermine
Iām not saying that what he has suggested in that post would not be of interest to anyone, Iām sure it would. My only point is that it would amount to something that barely even resembles the old RSV. Again, in terms of thematic focus and, to a large degree, even mechanical functions and interactions.
Fuctionally, SV is struggling. Even if one enjoys crushing trash pulls with cluster bombs, its not something that brings a lot to the group effort of clearing an instance that isnāt adequately handled otherwise. And this expansion so far, the boss damage is just meh. Mechanically, there is a shadow of an interesting something there, but it needs a lot of work.
There is no reason that the wildfire bombs, serpent sting and chakrams could not be a part of a reworked SV that is designed primarily for ranged, with a polearm talent option that preserves current MSV for the admitted minority that loves it. Serpent sting is a poison dot. KC applies bleeds. The bombs explode.
Iām not sure exactly what old RSV mechanic you are looking for to be brought back (besides a copy paste of old RSV from one particular expansion) but Iād be willing to bet there is room for it in the bare bones that are left of SV without BfAs borrowed power.
Iām not saying it is. But wild man is what I think of the person who fights with wild strikes using a spear and using nature (poisons and chosen animal companions) to bring their foes down. I think thereās enough space to fit both your version and my own within the identity to current SV. Similar to how I viewed old SV as an arcane archer while others viewed it more as a munitions expert.
I view the spec as up close and personal because of the melee, and I think thematically it fits with the idea of fighting side by side with the pet despite the range of most of the abilities right now.
Edit: To me the closest to a barbarian in WoW is the Fury Warrior. The main thing working against it is the whole plate armor thing but beyond that it fits my idea of what a barbarian in WoW would look like.
So I was never an RSV main, and Iāll readily accept that I might not be hitting the mark, but whatās missing?
- Emphasis on DoT damage over burst
- Proc on for damage for key burst
- Spread dots in AoE
- 100% mobility at range without relying on pet for key damage
What else did RSV have that Iām missing here?
1 Like
I honestly think survival needs not only a few redesigns, but also a tuning pass if itās going to live in the melee space. That said, what is wrong with it for me is that itās melee. There are other classes I prefer to melee on, so it doesnāt really scratch any particular itch for me. More than anything, it just makes me think of what could be if it were ranged. Iām really enjoying MM right now, and to think that Survival could be a bit more elusive and survivable, and exchange explosive damage for a more sustained spread pressure makes me sad.
Perhaps(I couldnāt tell all that much as Iāve barely played it since BfA alpha+beta). And for SL, they just did some tuning for talents soā¦
Altough the part you quoted there, is specifically pointing towards the connection between what Adreaver is aiming for with his suggestions and with what was the old RSV. It has less to do with what actually is the current SV.
I mean, technically no. Incendiary bombs/explosives does fit the general theme of a munitions expert. But if you recall the old RSV which arguably had the most iconic ability being Explosive Shot, why would you replace that with a bomb? If the intention is to allow it to once again play as ranged(with a ranged weapon) that isā¦
Yep, true. Both for melee and for ranged. Although for melee, I would argue that it makes more thematical sense for it to be tied to some form of element suited for melee-weapons. Such as a short-term CD allowing you to apply said venom with each strike, or similar.
Chakrams have nothing to do with either a spec focusing on the use of a ranged, projectile-based weapon(be it arrows or bullets), or a spec that is focused on coordinated strikes between the hunter and his/her melee-weapon coupled with the pet.
Chakrams are a reference to the Night Elf Wardens found in Azeroth. And while they certainly appear somewhat hunterāish in nature, they are also heavily inspired by rogue-fantasies as well as some more brutal direct attacks, kin to that of warriors(although with more agility and graceā¦sort ofā¦like DHs).
A bit of an off-tangentā¦
Imagine if you will, a class that fights similar to Rogues with lighter 1h weapons. Something like a mix between Rogues and Demon Hunters(without the āfelā). Imagine this class having specs that focus on using either daggers/1h swords + chakram-style fist weapons. And, imagine that one or even several abilities are designed around/inspired by throwing the weapon towards enemies and have it circle back to you. One that is heavily inspired by Warden-archetypes.
Essentially, I would argue that this makes much more sense as a separate option rather than one that is part of the Hunter class.
Itās essentially a combination between the old mechanical theme coupled with the actual thematic focus on a fantasy-level. Along with the aesthetics ofc.
What Adreaver suggested would not achieve that.
If you check old ability compilations and talent calculators from past expansions where we had RSV, you will find what is missing.
Not unless you also start to shave off other current elements from MSV, both baseline ones as well as talents. To make room for RSV features.
And even if, that only gives us some weird amalgamation between current MSV and a very bland and basic version of the old RSV, mashed together. With-less than-ideal depth to each individual fantasy.
And yet that is exactly what is claimed to be the case, by many, but especially Bepples on this forum. It is cited as the reason melee cant have unique raid utilities removed from their kit forcing them to stand purely on their DPS. (Instead of melee classes being brought purely for mandatory raid utilities).
If āno one would bring melee without raid utilitiesā because they are inherently inferior, that seems like an issue that could be (and once was addressed) in the design of ranged classes.
Well, I guess that depends on if youāre aiming solely at implementing the most basic mechanics and interactions without any thematic accuracy or aesthetic focus that references the old RSV, or if you actually want players to have access to something that more closely resembles the old SV.
Sure, although you suggested that they should keep Wildfire Bomb and leave out Explosive Shot. Considering that these 2 have different levels of active usage, and how the Bombs donāt rely on a ranged weaponā¦
You also suggested that they should add in Lacerate as an optional talent which interacts with Wildfire Bomb to simulate the former interaction between Explosive Shot and Black Arrow(Lock&Load).
Lacerate is strictly a melee-based ability and from what I could see, you did not mention how that would work if you want to play it as a ranged spec. Also worth noting is that it makes little thematic sense for why a physical bleed applied by a melee-weapon should interact in any way with a thrown bomb.
But yeahā¦details(me being picky)ā¦
You did mention that they could add Serpent Spread in as an optional talent. And, sure, that works. Although if you then choose to play SV as ranged, if you wna do any form of AoE-damage worth noting, youād be forced to pick said talent for it to apply to Multi-Shot.
Again, bound to a talent designed around the use of a melee-weapon only.
Sure. To a certain degree.
Like I mentioned in a previous reply to someone else here, apart from what I said above just now, itās also about the fact that this would leave no room whatsoever to further explore the potential of the theme and fantasy that was the old RSV.
The result would essentially be that SV was 1 spec that compiles an amount of abilities and effects that equal something close to 2 separate specs, just with the added issues that comes when the two are merged into one. Even with a more conservative angle, saying that it equals 1.5 specs(as you only have 1 specs worth of talents to pick between).
So my question then becomesā¦
Why?
This would require quite a bit to work/dev time, and it wouldnāt actually achieve what we knew as being the old RSV.
Why not focus on adding the old RSV back as a 4th spec option and do it properly instead? Allowing MSV to be further developed with itās own thematic focus in mind.
Strictly mechanics. Go ahead and change the ability names and damage schools in my concept of you want it more thematically accurate or whatever.
Because Iām not trying to wholesale replace MSV with RSV. Iām trying to add the mechanics that were well liked in RSV as options within the current MSV framework.
Lacerate would be a weapon attack, usable with melee or range. You are perfectly capable of lacerating someone (read: cutting them very badly and inflicting heavy bleeding) with something like serrated arrows.
Thematically it made little sense why damage from a cursed arrow allowed you to fire more arrows with dynamite strapped to them, so Iām not really seeing a new issue (and again, the post was about mechanics, I donāt care about the theme at this point, that can come later by changing names and damage schools).
Or you take Hydraās Bite, which makes base Serpent Sting hit 3 targets, at half the Focus cost of Multi-Shot.
Because I do not think Blizzard will ever create a 4th spec for a pure DPS class unless they get to a point where EVERY class is getting a 4th spec as part of an expansion feature (in lieu of a new class/borrowed power/whatever). Expanding options within a spec to include different weapon types, however, has been done for multiple other specs in Shadowlands. True, those are melee specs that can choose DW or 2h, but MSV is already about half ranged anyway, with only Auto Attack/Raptor Strike/Carve/Muzzle/Wing Clip requiring melee range, and everything else working at medium range at least.
He argues that they are inherently inferior, because they are.
All else being equal, melee vs. ranged is like comparing two rogues, one with 300% movement speed against another with 50% movement speed. There is no trade off in that factor alone; one is objectively better.
As far as Iāve seen, even he doesnāt argue that it is an insurmountable disability. Itās merely an initial disadvantage which, in building a class design which can deal with said disadvantage, tends to offer alternate strengths (e.g. true mobility in place of relative mobility).
Hopefully, in my earlier reply as well as this one, you donāt take offense to anything I say. Thatās not my intent at all. Iām not a native english speaker so, some things I say will probably appear a bitā¦odd.
Fair enough. Although this would pretty much be what Iām getting at.
I canāt speak for everyone ofc, but with gameplay and fantasy, having access to a playstyle on a thematic level that fits the intended prior fantasy, makes all the difference.
For example:
Wildfire Bomb - is a ranged ability that deals DoT over a short window, sure.
But is it designed like Explosive Shot was? No.
Is it based on the theme of using a ranged weapon? No.
Okay sure. You did not mention this so I assumed that you intended it to work like Lacerate did in the past.
As it happens, MM used to have a talent called Serrated Shot during the BfA Alpha, in the place of Serpent Sting.
I can only assume that they replaced it because of how they were also adding in Barbed Shot for BM at the same time and did not want those similarities between the specs.
The argument/debate of whether it actually was dynamite-on-a-stick or whether it was just the icon tied to the ability that portrayed it as a slight reference, asideā¦
True. Andā¦
ā¦you asked me what I felt was missing/wasnāt right with your suggestions, in reference to the old RSV.
The theme and fantasy, and the specific mechanics of RSV, are what Iām after. I donāt want abilities/elements that somewhat only references the old playstyle, mostly through sheer mechanics.
Oh, you intend to keep this along with Serpent Spread? I meanā¦sure, it technically works. Although, wouldnāt it be a bit redundant to have a 3-target cleave talent for SrS + another one that is a 5-target cleave/applier? You did not specify which talent that was to be replaced by Serpent Spread butā¦
Also, if most of the abilities you have that are used fairly frequently, if most of them automatically apply SrS, then what would be the point of having SrS as a separate ability? Note that I want SrS to be itās own ability. Not like what they did with it in WoD(where Arcane Shot automatically applied it on ST).
I do agree that it is unlikely.
But why not? What would be the argument for not adding another spec?
I would argue that the boldāed section is the major crux here. And what makes all the difference as to whether this is a good idea or not.
Balancing the concept of using 1h weapons or a 2h weapon within a single spec, is more than okay if you ask me.
Howeverā¦
Attempting to balance the idea of using either melee weapons or ranged ones, within the same spec, I would say puts us waaay to close to what was happening with Feral before they split it into two separate specs. And yes, in the case of Feral it was a matter of managing different combat roles. But even though we are here talking solely about dps, ranged vs. melee is still far from the same thing.